The Tripura High Court dismissed the plea for regularization of the Appellant's services as the similarly situated piece-rated worker's services were already regularised.
The Court noted that the Appellant had concealed that his appointment was made through a pick-and-choose policy. In consequence, the cost of Rs. 25000 was imposed for not coming with a clean hand in the Court.
Brief Facts:
The Appellants were engaged as a worker under the Department of Handloom, Handicraft & Sericulture and later joined as Piece-rated workers. On 02.08.2003, they made several representations for the regularization of their service as the services of the similarly situated piece-rated worker were already regularised. However, the respondent denied their request. Therefore, the Appellant had filed the present petition with a prayer to direct the respondent to regularise his services.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
It was the petitioner's case that his services should be regularised as the services of the similarly situated piece-rated worker were already regularised. On 19.05.2022, The High Court, in writ petition no. WP(C)No.789 of 2020 had also directed the respondent to consider the representations of the petitioners expeditiously in reference to other similarly situated employees and pass orders in accordance with the law in two months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.
However, when the Appellant made their representation before respondent No.3, they regretted the representation of the appellants and similar other situated persons.
Observation of the Court
This Court had referred to the order of the learned Single Judge passed in the writ petition being WP(C) No.933 where the petitioner had categorically stated that the petitioners were not appointed through established norms of appointment.
They were appointed under the pick-and-choose policy. Therefore, the Court held that Learned Counsel appeared for the Appellant had tried to suppress the facts that his appointment was through pick and choose the policy. The Counsel had failed to come with clean hands to argue the case, which is not fair for the client and the Counsel. It amounts to a wastage of the time of the Court.
The decision of the Court:
The Tripura High Court dismissed the plea of the Appellant for regularising their services and imposed a cost of Rs. 25,000 for suppressing the facts.
Case Title: Smt. Dipti Sarkar (Das) vs The State of Tripura and Ors.
Coram: Hon’ble Chief Justice Acting and Justice S.G. Chattopadhyay
Case no.: W.A.222 of 2022
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. B. Paul
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. D. Bhattacharya
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com:
Picture Source :
